Create L2 for SSM

[RomainMuller]

There is currently no L2 constructs for SSM.

[akkaash]

In case this isn't being actively worked upon, I can possibly take a stab at this over the weekend.

[rix0rrr]

No one is working on this as far as I know.

[eladb]

That will be awesome @akkaash

Make sure you read our guidelines if you haven't already :-)

[akkaash]

Making progress here. I wanted to understand what's the stance on doing validation inside Constructs? Like for example, since TS only supports number which is floating point value and CFN spec expects an Integer type, is it safe to make these checks in the L2 constructs? I had the same concern in my PR #1221

I assume below (from guideline) applies in this case, need someone to confirm this though:

Good: Runtime check everything the type checker can’t enforce and fail early (error in the constructor).

[eladb]

Yes, you can add runtime checks in your L2s as you see fit, but I wouldn't over do it. For example, we usually don't verify that a number passed is an integer. The names of properties should be sufficiently clear for people not to make such mistakes, and if they do, they might get an error during deployment.

But generally, yes! runtime checks are good!